Summary
In People v Grabowski, 15 Mich. App. 12; 166 N.W.2d 57 (1968), our Court found the safe breaking statute was not unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous.
Summary of this case from People v. FergusonOpinion
Docket No. 4,132.
Decided December 20, 1968. Leave to appeal denied March 14, 1969. See 381 Mich. 808.
Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Schemanske (Frank G.), J. Submitted Division 1 November 26, 1968, at Detroit. (Docket No. 4,132.) Decided December 20, 1968. Leave to appeal denied March 14, 1969. See 381 Mich. 808.
Casimir Grabowski was convicted of violating the bank, safe and vault robbery statute, and breaking and entering a business place. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Robert J. McClear, for defendant.
Defendant, Casimir Grabowski, was tried by jury and convicted of violating the bank, safe and vault robbery statute, CL 1948, § 750.531 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.799) and breaking and entering a business place contrary to MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.305). On appeal it is contended that the safecracking statute is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction.
The defendant's suggested interpretation of the bank, safe and vault robbery act is unreasonable. The questions presented here on appeal are unsubstantial and require no formal argument or submission.
Affirmed.
LESINSKI, C.J., and J.H. GILLIS and QUINN, JJ., concurred.